User talk:JzG/Archive 135

Archive 130

←

Archive 133

Archive 134

Archive 135

Archive 136

Archive 137

→

Archive 140

Draft:Investindustrial approval

Hello,

I'm writing to you regarding the Investindustrial page. After the page was deleted (speedy deletion), you created a Draft page Draft:Investindustrial so that the new text could be reviewed and approved. The page is now complete and is waiting for approval. My doubt regards the approval process, there is a functionality where I can mark the draft as ready and submit it for approval? Sorry about that. Thank you very much, Tinext (talk) 16:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

European Graduate School

on this, you actually reverted me. slipped in before you sorry. i didn't revert you. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Warning shot fired. Warrior for truth on numerous topics, and I think not long for this place. Guy (Help!) 00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Dugu

But why did you just reverse ALL the edits? I also included citations and references to four books, which you also reverted. Which is not right. You should have let me know and I would have removed the blog entries. That would have been much easier and much less frustrating. The Ralston, Richardson and Rixon references were to well-known books on diecasting. Can you revert back and I will remove the blog notes instead of rewriting all the references? Thanks. --Cstevencampbell (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Cstevencampbell Like I said, it is too hard to pick apart the mix of good and bad when you make an edit that adds multiple purported sources at the same time. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

The Hum

Usually it's obvious when something is nonsense but here I just couldn't tell so I did the next best thing and at least cleaned it up a bit. Could be someone with a latest possible explanation, "increase in Smart Grid technology" why not. I've followed that story for a while and everything about it is weird. Anyways I'm glad you caught it. Best. SlightSmile 00:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh indeed. The ol' spidey-senses are attuned to EMF-based bullshit right now, is all :-) Guy (Help!) 00:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

PIng

Don't know if this ping came through to you, so letting you know. —SpacemanSpiff 14:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Gerardo_Jiménez_Sánchez

I removed your PROD. It's not so bad that it can't be fixed. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Tanning bed

Hello,

You reverted my edits, many of which were based on the fact that content was unsourced. I then noticed that you then deleted content that was unsourced. So you it's not okay for me to do it, but it's okay for you to do it? Can you please explain? Thank you. --Darkwaterbuffalo4 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your succession of edits, which served overall to minimise criticism of a deadly product. Nothing else requires explanation. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Guy, by virtue of you saying "A deadly product", you raise very serious issues about your ability to be objective and edit without a bias. I have no idea what your experience is with them, or your background, but that is a very telling sentence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Is skin cancer not a deadly disease, then? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Lack of sun also causes skin cancer and colon cancer, so it is about being objective. The tanning bed article isn't the place to debate UV of course. If you came across someone editing the cigarette article and they insisted on calling them "cancer sticks", you would wonder about their objectivity. It isn't about sources, it is about WP:weight and npov. I take it you can stay neutral, but I had to point that out, just as you would if it were I. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That is the classic bait-and-switch of the snake oil salesman, and you should know it. Come on, you are better than this. There's no credible evidence supporting sunbed use, it is a vanity thing and one which comes with serious and well documented risks. And I say that as one who has used these things many times. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have put out many of them with doctor's prescriptions. I have sold many to doctors themselves for use in their practice. We never made claims. One doctor bought 20 for various offices, sometimes blending them with 633nm tubes. By any measure, I'm an expert in this one field. I wasn't some schmuck working the docks, I actually know the physics and mechanicals. There are plenty of people selling snake oil, I'm not one of them and not trying to cover anything up, but perhaps I know things you don't. Assume good faith, ask questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

But, as you know, the vast majority are sold and used for purely cosmetic purposes, at considerable risk to the user. We have an article on UV therapy, the two concepts are different. This distresses me, Dennis, because I have absolutely no desire to pick a fight with you. I would rather walk away than end up in dispute with you. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Of course most are sold for purely cosmetic reasons, I've never disputed that. I just don't want to see the article stay like it is, a 2 dimensional slam that resembles a high school project slamming them for slamming sake. Of course there is risk, but since 1988 (US), Congress regulated them so they only produce 4 MEDs, and in the EU, the lamps can only be as strong as the natural sun as of a few years ago. They aren't nearly as strong as people think. This is what I mean about balance. I've never denied the risk to anyone, which might make me rare, but I am who I am. Most newspapers overblow the risk because they don't understand the physics, but that doesn't change the fact that risks exist, and this is why we should use MEDRS sources for risks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have thought long and hard about this. I have a view of the neutrality and ideal format of that article, and I find the promotional edits of recent months abhorrent given that the number one documented adverse effect of these things is malignant melanoma, but if it means having a fight with you, I am not going there. You have a COI, I recommend you also leave it alone, maybe recruit Jytdog or someone, but I am unwatching that article. Note that this is not normal for me. Content is king, as far as I am concerned, but I simply do not feel strongly enough about this to risk falling out with someone I consider a friend. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I expect to limit most of my edits to the talk page and formatting, as well as uncontroversial prose. I respect that I have a COI but at the same time, I also have some expertise that can be helpful. I want neutrality as well. I hate that you feel you need to walk away, but I understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Men's rights movement

Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) First you remove it then you replace it? Don't get it. Up to you. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Guy (Help!) 00:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Mucoid Plaque

I added an area to the Mucoid Plaque talk. Please guide me to what violates Wikipedia that resulted in you undoing my revision. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mucoid_plaque — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozeplyn (talk • contribs) 00:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The self-sourced opinions of believers in nonsense are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially not to "balance" reality-based content. Guy (Help!) 00:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

what do you mean by "self-sourced"? I don't understand. --Aerozeplyn (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Jolly Phonics delete

I saw you deleted "Jolly Phonics". Are you sure that page can't be rescued to be more neutral somehow? I think Jolly Phonics is quite a big thing, used in lot of UK schools. I don't remember how the wikipedia article looked now but it can't have been too bad. I decided it was the thing to link to from my blog post, but now there's nothing. :-( -- Harry Wood (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• It was written, and all substantive edits, were by Symonlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Allie77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jolly Learning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). So: blatant advertising. Sorry. Guy (Help!) 11:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Election weeks away

Meant to mention this earlier. At the AE discussion of My very best wishes you say the election is weeks away. It's next Tuesday. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hi, Guy. When this popped up on my watchlist, I thought it was Doug asking you to run for ArbCom, in that election, and thought "What a good idea". You should! You're needed! Bishonen | talk 12:15, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

Hell no. I lack the patience, tact and time. But thank you :-) Guy (Help!) 12:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone good needs to take my slot! But you're probably right. Lol. Not long until nominations. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

In a (not particularly good) fantasy novel, there is an island where the inhabitants forcibly elect their leaders. The (potential) leader is placed under armed guard as soon as they are nominated (against their will) to prevent them from fleeing. Should they get elected, all their possessions are sold and the total invested in the national economy. Should the economy make a profit, they get it all back with interest. Should it tank, they lose money etc. I always thought the concept of enforced service should be extended to wikipedia. Admins must spend 3 months a year handing arbitration cases etc.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Over the hills...

So going down the rabbitholes from Peter Hofschröer I have ended up at Willem Jan Knoop which has issues. Specifically the third paragraphy at the end of 'Siborne controversy' that makes a number of statements in wikivoice that appear to be very non-neutral, not supported by sources (except heavily POV-slanted ones) etc. "Siborne's book nevertheless became a celebrated source in Anglophone historiography for many secondary accounts of the battles of Quatre Bras and Waterloo, that faithfully perpetuated the many egregious errors of fact and fabrications (willful or accidental) in Siborne's work." Which is strong wording which is not mentioned in Siborne's article at all. You would think someone who made many 'egregious' errors and falsifications would have it mentioned somewhere with a reliable source. "Recently the controversy resurfaced with the attack by David Hamilton-Williams, who used Knoop's rebuttal as one of his sources (though not for his accusations of fraud aimed at Siborne).[8] This apparently earned Hamilton-Williams the enmity of many Siborne-fans, and an avalanche of mostly ad hominem attacks." etc etc. I'm tempted to nuke the paragraph in its entirety as it appears to only be semi-related to the subject and more of a catfight between competing historians? In a wider sense, there are a number of related articles relating to the Napoleonic wars that appear to be having similar problems. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

By a curious coincidence I visited Deventer earlier this year to sing, and also went to the Paleis het Loo, which has a connection here. Guy (Help!) 11:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I must be dense, as I cannot see the link? Unless I have my Orange Williams well out of order... Or is this just general pro-Dutchness? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

It's the various Oranges and the many portraits and histories of their military whatnottery. Tenuous link, mind. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah I see. I am writing up a list to get to in my future spare time so will be adding some of the Napoleonic articles to it. Unfortunately I have been distracted by what appears to be some sort of template-war currently in progress. Not the usual 'should we have/not use a template' but lots of RFC's over the wording on templates and then edit warring to make the use (of the template) on the article adhere to their interpretation. Although if we are talking EU Pro-Cath military commanders, I have a soft spot for Gustavus Adolphus who really should be taught more in the UK. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic as pseudoscience

There are numerous sources which categorize the entirety of chiropractic as pseudoscience. The only possible defence against this is to claim that chiropractic isn't a science at all, but with all the work being done I have a hard time justifying that. Also it's important that this is visible in the first or second sentence of the introduction, as these are the only ones to show up in Google searches (where we get most of our readers from). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You know the solution. Demonstrate that the preponderence of RS sources supports the characterisation overall, and not just in respect of innate and the so-called chiropractic subluxation. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Of the sources discussing the overall basis of chiropractic most do indeed describe it as pseudoscience or similar. I added a reference to a very thorough book which states (among many other things):

The profession is rooted in pseudo-science, and much of it is actively antiscientific.

I can frankly not find any RS that claims it is scientifically sound, only some that suggest it should be evidence based [1], not that it is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding NCGS etc. =

Guy, For some reason I can't work out how to email you directly. Is there something wrong with your User page? In HELP it says to click on "email user", but I can't see this.

Can you email me on k.bowden@physics.bbk.ac.uk. I want to have a brief dialog about the nature of these medical articles. Best, K — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithbowden (talk • contribs) 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

We can talk about it on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 14:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to discuss the nature of Wiki medical articles in general. It did not seem to me that discussing it on the Talk page for NCGS was the appropriate place. Actually I am just asking for advice, and I saw this: "Everything I do or say could be wrong. I try always to be open to that possibility. If you think I am wrong, please just talk to me nicely, and it can all be sorted out like grown-ups." Or maybe not?Keithbowden (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Check the left-hand column of this page; look for "Email this user" indented under "Tools". (As an aside from a talk page lurker, I would call a snippy "or maybe not" to be pushing the bounds of "talk to me nicely", particularly given that you haven't been willing to tell JzG in any way what your issue is.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of [Mesh (band)]

The article [Mesh (Band)] was deleted in September; at the time the majority of those in favour of the deletion cited the poor style of the article and the lack of references. Some also claimed the band was not well known enough.

I reworked the draft article to address these issues, and someone resubmitted it for review. Yesterday you have deleted the article again without reference to the improvements made, or any explanation why. The article has been substantially changed, so I believe G4 no longer applies. No one has had a chance to respond to your concerns. As I write, the band is number 1 in the German Alternative Charts. What can I do to at least re-open the deletion discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Sumo (talk • contribs) 14:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The "new" article was virtually identical and had no substantive additional sources. This also applies to all the other re-creations. Guy (Help!) 15:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Deleted-DHCM.png

Thanks for uploading File:Deleted-DHCM.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Christof Bucherer

Might I suggest that you revdel the edit where Christof posted a physical address? That's a bit too much private info to be revealing on Wiki. Regards. Blackmane (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Questionable edits on LearningRx and Brain Balance

The "further reading" section in LearningRx links to what looks like to me a promotion. A book title that seems to advocate the program, something that would be a wp:advertising. And also on Brain Balance, I put reliably sourced criticism of the program. A few days later an IP (probably affiliated with the company) added that a randomized control trial showed benefits of the program. But I can't seem to figure out weather it verifies if the company funded or had links to the trail. If so I don't think it should be there as it become WP:SPAM. Better check them out.--Taeyebar 23:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And listen to what he says [2], I think it's great advice.--Taeyebar 23:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed that promotional link myself. And this IP edit [3] was also reverted I think.--Taeyebar 18:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit

What are you thoughts on this [4]? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Very weird. The user made a large number of edits all flagged "minor" every single one of which introduced a reference to a publication by one Halil Tekiner, apparently an assistant professor at a respectable university but not by any means an obviously prominent authority. I suspect that Cesaree01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is, or is associated with, this person. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Richard Pombo

I just realized I didn't write you after tagging you on the page [5] with my many edits/suggestions, so my apologies for not checking in here sooner. As has already been disclosed, I am a former employee of Richard Pombo so there's that going for me. I hope you or another editor can take a look at my critique of the current Richard Pombo page to see whether it can be updated to reflect the bad sources, poor organization, bad [ahem] writing, and blatantly beautiful bias, though I know my credibility is out the window with my disclosure that I know him, but still, I hope you can take a look at my critique and I would appreciate your guidance and views. Thank you. --Rencoyote (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi JzG.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi JzG,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

RE Your block of Hewitt...

...You do know that any block in enforcement of an arbitration sanction can be an AE block right? It doesnt have to go to the AE noticeboard to do so. The noticeboard is just a central location to report them. Any administrator can place an AE block as long as its enforcing an active arbitration sanction against a user. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I do, but the bar is higher and this was an admin block based on behaviour not an AE block based on matching behaviour precisely to sanctioned behaviour. Maybe I am being too cautious. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have always been of the opinion the bar is lower for AE blocks due to the sanction already existing. There is a de-facto justification already in place for a substantial block. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

True, but AE blocks cannot be reversed without serious consequences, and I prefer to go with the lower bar of a standard block. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Arkell v. Pressdram

I just happened to see this edit for the first time today, and it made me laugh out loud. Just wanted you to know that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

:)

Thanks for ending this joke. --Asterixf2 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

As you keep track of these things...

here - are the journals mentioned reputable? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not seeing any obvious signs this is a fraudulent journal - Beall knoweth it not, for example - but it is very low impact and combines two not-obviously-connected disciplines, philosophy and cosmology.